The Mental Game: Metis and... Yoga

Part 1: Metis or not metis?

I was trying to put my finger on the point of dispute about metis while on the shuttle this evening (as you do). Because in class I couldn't decide whether it was a terminology issue, something deeper, or something else entirely...

Here's what I came up with—and Dan can tell me if this is even close.

In class we were calling "metis" a certain configuration of circumstances where experience, skill, attentiveness and opportunity all come together in something we call "seizing the moment".

And I think the question Dan was raising was whether this was basically an effect produced when a certain "critical mass" of all the elements (experience, skill, opportunity etc.) was reached, rather than a new element in the mix, ie an active principle that caused moments to be seized.

This question in some ways goes back to situations in sport where we argue about the relative role of skill, or competence, and luck in a given contest: and this issue is particularly tricky when it comes to metis, because metis, as the ability to seize chances, is where skill and luck meet.

The other issue is what it means to be a "smart" player: is "intelligence" just another skill, like "a good arm", or is it the skill of using one's other skills (or any other means at one's disposal), in which case it seems to be a kind of "meta" ability ("meta" meaning "of a higher order"), like judgement, or... metis.

Pt 2: Yoga or not yoga?

When Detienne and Vernant were describing the Greek philosophical tradition as one with a strict separation between the "intelligible" realm of "being" and the "sensible" realm of "becoming", they mentioned in passing a contrast with other philosophical traditions, eg. Indian.

Now, all I know about the Indian philosophical tradition has come through doing yoga, so I am no authority, but from that I gather that the aim is to achieve a balance between opposing forces: you still have various oppositions between body/mind, being/becoming etc., but rather than these being separate realms, they are dynamic principles you are supposed to find some kind of harmonious balance of - a "synthesis" or "resolution" of opposites.

I bring this up because on the front page of the Sports section of today's New York Times is an article about baseball players taking up yoga and meditation to improve their game: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/sports/baseball/12pitcher.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

It's a very interesting article, particularly when thinking about what the "mental" aspect of the game is, eg. this snippet about Jason Hirsh: "Hirsh represents the flip side of the steroid controversy, a 6-foot-8 pitcher who has spent the past four off-seasons trying to build up his mind."

They suggest that this kind of training is especially unusual for baseballers—who have a reputation for being old-fashioned?—though they also suggest that baseballers are unusally superstitious and would "rub snake oil on their elbows" if they thought it might help their game... (But what's more "mental" than a placebo effect? And what's wrong with it if it helps?)